Petitioner
Abdirahman Abdi Mohamed was previously detained on an order
of removal by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) awaiting deportation to Somalia. After
sitting in jail for five months, Mohamed filed a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus claiming that there was not a
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future and that, pursuant to Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), his continued detention was
therefore unlawful. In its initial response, the government
argued that Mohamed's removal was “far from
impossible, ” but “likely” after the
conclusion of Somali elections, and thus that his detention
was justified. (Doc. No. 4, Gov't Resp. 11.) Elections in
Somalia came and passed, however, with no change in
Mohamed's custody status for over three months.

On May
22, 2017, this Court ordered the government to file a
supplemental memorandum providing an update on Mohamed's
whereabouts, including whether a travel document had been
issued for his departure and whether a definite timeframe had
been established for his return to Somalia. (Doc. No. 8.)
Three days later, Mohamed was released from ICE custody.
(Doc. No. 10, Declaration of Ana H. Voss (“Voss
Decl.”) ¶ 3; Doc. No. 10-1, Exhibit to Voss Decl.
(“Voss Ex.”).) The following day, the government
submitted a memorandum setting forth its position that the
habeas corpus petition had become moot on account of their
release of Mohamed.

Mohamed's
habeas corpus petition was referred to this Court for a
Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Rule 72.1. After review, this Court concludes that
habeas corpus relief is no longer available to Mohamed, as he
has already been released from detention. Accordingly, it is
recommended that this matter be dismissed without prejudice
as moot.

I.
Background

Mohamed
is a citizen of Somalia. (Doc. No. 1, Habeas Pet. ¶ 11.)
On July 5, 2001, Mohamed was admitted to the United States as
a refugee. (Doc. No. 5, Declaration of Robert Tremont
(“Tremont Decl.”) ¶ 1; Doc. No. 5-1, Exhibit
to Tremont Decl. (“Tremont Ex.”) at 4.) His
status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident on
October 27, 2008. (Tremont Decl ¶ 2; Tremont Ex. at 4.)

In
2012, Mohamed pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in state
court and was sentenced to a 58-month term of imprisonment.
See State of Minnesota v. Mohamed, No. 55-CR-12-3124
(Minn. Dist. Ct.); Tremont Decl. ¶ 3; Tremont Ex. at
6-11. On account of the conviction, Mohamed was ordered
removed from the United States by Immigration Judge Kristin
W. Olmanson on April 11, 2014. (Tremont Ex. at 21.) The Board
of Immigration Appeals affirmed the order of removal on
September 11, 2014. (Tremont Ex. at 24-27.) ICE took Mohamed
into custody on August 13, 2015, immediately after he had
completed his term of imprisonment with the Minnesota
Department of Corrections. (Tremont Decl. ¶ 8.) About
three months later, Mohamed was released on the finding that
there was no significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future and that he was not a flight
risk or a threat to the community. (Tremont Decl. ¶ 9;
Habeas Pet. ¶ 6.)[1]

On
March 22, 2016, Mohamed was found to have violated the terms
of his supervised release in state court. (Tremont Decl.
¶ 10.) After serving a term of imprisonment for that
violation, Mohamed was returned to ICE custody on June 8,
2016 - not on the basis that he had violated the order of
supervision imposed when he was first released from ICE
custody (which required, among other things, that Mohamed not
violate any criminal laws), but on the grounds that there was
once again a significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future. (Tremont Decl. ¶ 11;
Tremont Ex. at 29.) Travel documents were requested from the
Somali embassy a few days later. (Tremont Decl. ¶ 12.)
Three months passed without procurement of the necessary
travel documents, but ICE elected to keep Mohamed in custody,
not only on the finding that there remained a significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,
but also on the new finding, based on the prior criminal
proceedings, that Mohamed “appear[ed] to be a threat to
the community.” (Tremont Ex. at 30.) Three months
later, ICE once again refused to release Mohamed, this time
solely on the basis that his removal from the United States
was likely in the near future. See Tremont Ex. at 31
(“A travel document from the Government of Somalia is
expected, therefore you are to remain in ICE custody at this
time.”)

In the
interim, Mohamed filed his habeas petition, alleging that he
was entitled to release from custody because the aggregated
terms of detention imposed upon him by ICE-that is, the
period of detention from August-November 2015, along with the
period of detention beginning on June 8, 2016 and continuing
through the date the habeas petition was filed-exceeded the
6-month presumptively reasonable period proscribed in
Zadvydas. (Habeas Pet. ¶ 17.)[2] In response, the
government argued that Mohamed's release was delayed due
to the postponement of the Somali elections. (Tremont Decl.
¶ 16.) Mohamed maintained in his reply that this removal
was not reasonably foreseeable because his request for travel
documents had been pending for over six months with no
response from the Somali embassy, and the government's
evidence that removal was imminent consisted largely of the
say-so of a single ICE officer.

The
long-postponed Somali elections were finally held on February
8, 2017. See Somalia's Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo
Chosen as President, BBC News,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38904663 (last
visited June 5, 2017). Travel documents were not forthcoming,
however, because Mohamed remained in ICE custody as of May
22, 2017. That day, this Court ordered the government to
provide an update within four days as to Mohamed's status
in light of the long-since-passed elections in Somalia. (Doc.
No. 8.) One day before this Court's deadline for
response, Mohamed was released from ICE custody on an order
of supervision. (Voss Ex. at 1-2, 6-8.)

II.
Analysis

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A.
Zadvy ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.